Post navigation

38 Responses to Quote of the moment: John Kenneth Galbraith pokes fun at conservative politics

Actually Flag, Jesus does use “YOU” language in Matthew 25…speaking to “the nations”, the “ethnos” in Greek. Sorry, but his teaching is abudantly clear to any who are not trying to justify their own greed and avarice.

So government is oppressing the rich? Let’s see…

The public schools here are outstanding. Was government oppressing me — I am fairly well off — when they taxed me for education? If so, have you an alternate proposal that would allow my daughter to be educated in such a safe, academically rigorous environment?

A highway near my home was just resurfaced. Was government oppressing me when they used some of the tax money I pay to make that happen? How do you suggest we improve roads, bridges and airports sans taxation?

Do you believe drinking water and air that is free of carcinogens is a basic human right worth taxing the citizenry to make a reality? If not, fine…how do you propose we go about making water potable and air breathable?

Is your argument, Flag, that there should be no taxation at all? Are you of a mind to say a flat tax is the panacea America needs? Or is Somalia actually what you consider to be a good example of a Libertarian paradise?

Some good stuff in your posts to me, on which we agree. First though, it is not true that Jesus nullified or in any major way did away with the teachings of the prophets and the lawgivers. Indeed, he was the one inspiring them in the first place.

As I said, he dispensed with the Old Testament and its “laws” – the religious history lessons in the book are moot to his cause.

Before Abraham was, I AM.

Before Abraham was, I AM too.

the second says basically the same about societal and not just individual responsibility to the poor and marginalized.

I disagree strongly.

Jesus did not say “We”.

He said “You”.

I believe he was completely wise enough to know the difference, and to know that whatever is required to invoke a “we” into an action, no matter how much one may believe it to be a good, requires the use of violence on those that refuse to act with “our” group.

Jesus’ last judgment condemnation was of nations — societies — governments in Matthew 25. The original language matters

Perhaps, however, it supports the point that it did not invoke nations to act but individuals, and criticized those institutions such as nations in their actions – for the reason I alluded to above.

Throughout this passage you suggest, his lessons were concluded by a statements of “and you shall”, not a “we shall”…..

Some good stuff in your posts to me, on which we agree. First though, it is not true that Jesus nullified or in any major way did away with the teachings of the prophets and the lawgivers. Indeed, he was the one inspiring them in the first place. Before Abraham was, I AM. (We don’t agree on that, of course.) Maricionism and Gnosticism are so 2nd Century!

But even if you want to leave aside the first testament, the second says basically the same about societal and not just individual responsibility to the poor and marginalized. Jesus’ last judgment condemnation was of nations — societies — governments in Matthew 25. The original language matters.

I never said though — at least i hope I didn’t and if I did, I retract it and apologize — that Jesus or anyone in the Bible condemned wealth or being wealthy. Indeed, the first testament says not to favor the rich OR the poor. Jesus would certainly be opposed to the oppression of rich people. I totally agree. He opposes the oppression of anyone.

Who is oppressing rich people? Who is proposing the oppression of the rich?

Marxist societies have and do. This is why I hate Marxism, among other reasons.

Post-revolution France oppressed the rich. This is why I largely consider that revolution a failure.

In America, Flag…who is proposing the oppression of the wealthy? Barack Obama? By suggesting they pay 38, rather than 34 %? The rich of 1955 would have loved to have been so oppressed. Or perhaps not, they may well have been informed enough to realize that everyone should participate in infrastructure and growth. Today’s rich are, with some honorable exceptions, not nearly so educated.

Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.

Government is a monopoly on the initiation of violence within a geographical area.

To ask of it for protection from initiation of violence when it -at its core- the greatest instigator of it is utterly foolish.

Your side

What’s “my side”?

I think you have me confused with something else.

distorts economics so that economics solely benefit exactly one class…the class with all the money.

Government is legitimized violence that is applied upon violent and non-violent men at a whim.

If a man wishes not to be the target of government violence, he endeavors to control government violence and use it against his adversaries and for his own benefit.

All men who reach for control of government have this goal regardless of their economic class – rich or poor.

It becomes no surprise that classes of men ally with the force of violence to (1) dissuade its application against them (2) apply its application on others.

In a modern democracy, the tools of such control revolve around the “vote” – not that voting is worth anything in of itself – it is the legitimizing of government that the voting accomplishes.

Thus, one gets government by being legitimized — and one can buy it or bribe WITH IT

So I can buy a politician’s favor – this is the method of the rich.
Or, a politician will BRIBE the poor for their legitimizing vote…
or…Do both at the same time

It is the existence of government that distorts men – by legitimizing violence on the non-violent – the use of the gun to force free men to act against their will and surrender their property to others who have not earned – is opposite of civilization.

Government and Civilization are OPPOSITES and in constant conflict with each other. As one rises the other falls.

For some dumb ass reason your party seems to think that “capitalism” and “free market” means that the businesses can do as they damn well please, screw any rules and if that completely fucks up the country and the people living in the country well..that’s the cost of business. Sorry, that’s morally depraved from the start.

You believe free men in voluntary trade are doing something wrong, justifying YOU to apply violence upon them.

You promote EVIL.

And yet that is what various coal mining towns in the Applachian mountain region have to deal with simply because Massey Energy, and others, can’t be bothered to act responsibly because that costs them profit, as if they’re not making more money then King Midas already, so when the people try to use the government to compel businesses to act responsibly you and your party scream “socialism” in a blatant act of stupidity.

The case you raise is not an example of “free market” but an example of government regulation

Government regulation does not exist to stop pollution.

Government regulation exists to allow pollution. Government regulations ALLOW the polluting of the water – against the wishes of the people. The people are helpless for they believe they have no legitimate avenue to rescue themselves other than appealing to the same evil entity that has legitimized the pollution!!!

And then your party claims that “the free market will fix the problems” despite the fact that you can’t point to a single example in modern human history of the free market doing any such thing.

You are blind to the very environment you live in.

Nearly everything you have has been provided by the free market – it has allowed you to accumulate riches greater than King Henry VIII – who was the richest man in the world of his time.

You are incredibly confused human being – no doubt a shining example of the public schooling system.

So to be blunt…since companies can not be trusted to do the right thing then yes, little one, a certain amount of regulation is necessary.

Because men can’t be trusted, you give men the right impose upon other men – thinking these men are more trusted then the men you don’t trust.

Oh and Black…have fun choking on the attempt to paint John Adams as “socialist” or “anti-capitalist.”

From Galbraith to John Adams in less a page…. whew!

or that you somehow know more about the system the founding fathers wanted then one of the founding fathers themselves.

*Scratch head*

So “we” know -by your own statement- what the “founding” fathers wanted in their “system” based on their writings, but “we” don’t know about the system of the “founding” fathers … because, …… “we” don’t know how to read?? or what?

How do we know yet not know something about the same thing at the same time???

Oh and Black…have fun choking on the attempt to paint John Adams as “socialist” or “anti-capitalist.” or that you somehow know more about the system the founding fathers wanted then one of the founding fathers themselves.

Let me know when you’re going to be concerned about your wellbeing for once in your miserble life.

Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.

John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

As for this, Black: You cannot complain about one side of a coin of politics – and infer the other side of the side of the coin does not do the same.

All politics distorts economics.

Oh on that agreed. Here’s the rub. Your side distorts economics so that economics solely benefit exactly one class…the class with all the money. Then there’s the fact I have yet to see you, Morgan or any other conservative here even come close to criticizing the Republicans and the right wing for anything and yet there you sit preaching to me that “both sides do it.”

For some dumb ass reason your party seems to think that “capitalism” and “free market” means that the businesses can do as they damn well please, screw any rules and if that completely fucks up the country and the people living in the country well..that’s the cost of business. Sorry, that’s morally depraved from the start.

Would you like to drink water that is the color of blood? Would you like to breathe air that smells of sulfur? I doubt it. And yet that is what various coal mining towns in the Applachian mountain region have to deal with simply because Massey Energy, and others, can’t be bothered to act responsibly because that costs them profit, as if they’re not making more money then King Midas already, so when the people try to use the government to compel businesses to act responsibly you and your party scream “socialism” in a blatant act of stupidity.

And then your party claims that “the free market will fix the problems” despite the fact that you can’t point to a single example in modern human history of the free market doing any such thing.

Only a mental midget thinks that the fox guarding the henhouse isn’t going to raid the henhouse. Only a mental midget thinks that, for example, Massey energy is going to suddenly clean up their act voluntairly. Only a mental midget thinks that Massey Energy gives a damn what is best for the people they affect and would be affected if those people got mad at them. You think Massey Energy gives a damn that its employees and their families are being negatively affected by the pollution that Massey Energy puts out? In those towns mining companies like Massey Energy control nearly everything and provide all the jobs. What power do those towns have against that situation?

So to be blunt…since companies can not be trusted to do the right thing then yes, little one, a certain amount of regulation is necessary. Because the “free market” time and time again proves that it has no power to do what your side claims.

Your side doesn’t want capitalism or free market…it wants economic piracy and economic serfdom. After all…your side is doing everything possible to make damn sure the average person in this country has no power.

What we dislike is economic piracy because the free market has been twisted by those with power and means so that it serves only their interests and keeps everyone else economically downtrodden and weak.

Then it is NOT a free market – it is something else other than a free market.

The free market exists on voluntary trade – if trade is forced by threat or use of violence, it is certainly not “free” nor voluntary.

Galbraith understood this, as he was not a stupid man.

His complaint was about the free choice of men – which confounds others who demand men follow some edict.

He counseled manipulating the market place so to obtain some sort of end that he assumed was a better outcome …. for who? For Galbraith….

Which is why we Kenesian’s have a problem

Keynesian’s have many problems….

with the Republican party and their rich masters. Why? Because they’ve twisted capitalism so that they are the only ones getting ahead and the rest of us are little better then pitifully paid servants.

You cannot complain about one side of a coin of politics – and infer the other side of the side of the coin does not do the same.

All politics distorts economics.

Politics requires resorting to violence and coercion to gain obedience.

Some learn from history, some just want to repeat it. Keynesians just understand that the pendulum swings both ways but is best facing south. It can face north by either going to far left or to far right. Its two different ways to get there but the end result is the same for the vast majority.

The boy asks what he needs to do to get to heaven, and Jesus tells him “follow the commandments”.

The boy -incredulously- says “yep, done that already” and presses Jesus for a “what else”?

Jesus says, To be perfect – knowing full well the foolish boy cannot have been perfect in maintaining the commandments – as no man is perfect – goads the boy – “alright, give away all your things and follow me.”

Of course, the boy – who was never perfect, but quite full of himself up to then – finds himself unable to comply – which really meant he wasn’t able to comply with the first commandments either.

Jesus’ retort to his disciplines is simple – if you love something else other than God, heaven is not your goal.

Despite your delusion to the contrary, Keynesian’s don’t hate the free market. What we dislike is economic piracy because the free market has been twisted by those with power and means so that it serves only their interests and keeps everyone else economically downtrodden and weak.

Which is why we Kenesian’s have a problem with the Republican party and their rich masters. Why? Because they’ve twisted capitalism so that they are the only ones getting ahead and the rest of us are little better then pitifully paid servants.

You might want to look up the percentage of the country’s income that was going to the lower tax brackets versus the top tax bracket before 1979 and what it is now. And then you can figure out how much more money you’d be making if what was going on from 1947-1979 wasn’t completely reversed by the Republicans and Ronald Reagan.

John Kenneth Galbraith never missed an opportunity to defend free markets, especially against command market economies. But then, he was a great scholar, a man of great breadth of education and reading, and he didn’t jump to unwarranted conclusions, nor did he make it a practice to make wild, unsubstantiated statements.

Consequently, when he defended free markets, kings, princes, presidents and dictators listened to him. Your life is measurably better because of his work — not least because of his great work making the American war machine function well to defeat the Nazis in World War II, and the communists in the Cold War.

@Black Flag: Galbraith didn’t hate the free market. He simply didn’t make an idol of it, and recognized its Darwinian limitations.

Or, to give another quotation from the man:

I react to what is necessary. I would like to eschew any formula. There are some things where the government is absolutely inevitable, which we cannot get along without comprehensive state action. But there are many things — producing consumer goods, producing a wide range of entertainment, producing a wide level of cultural activity — where the market system, which independent activity is also important, so I react pragmatically. Where the market works, I’m for that. Where the government is necessary, I’m for that. I’m deeply suspicious of somebody who says, “I’m in favor of privatization,” or, “I’m deeply in favor of public ownership.” I’m in favor of whatever works in the particular case.

As has been pointed out to you in another thread, Jesus hated whatever oppressed the poor and needy. In the Bible, as you are abundantly shown, the obligation of government — in addition to individuals and the church/temple — to do economic justice vis a vis the poor and marginalized is indisputable.

It’s your right not to accept it. It’s even your right to say Jesus and the prophets were a bunch of idiotic, bleeding heart do-gooders. It’s not your right to claim they were fans of plutocracy.

Like many reformers – Galbraith has as his basic objection of a free market is that it frustrates them in achieving their reforms,
because the free market enables people to have what they want, not what the reformers want. Hence every reformer has a strong tendency to be averse to a free market.

The modern conservative is in fact, not especially modern. He is engaged, on the contrary, in one of man’s oldest pursuits, best financed and most applauded and, on the whole least successful exercises in moral philosophy. This is the search for a truly superior moral justification for selfishness.

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy, that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. It is an exercise which always involves a certain number of internal contradictionss and even a few absurdities. The conspicuously wealthy turn up urging the character-buiding value of privation for the poor.”

The article seems to be behind the pay firewall at the Globe & Mail, unfortunately. Searching on “cornwell galbraith,” or “galbraith moral justification” or “galbraith stop the madness”) bring up a few article titles, including a Letter to the Editor from 10 July that year, 4 days later (“A Few Bad Apples”).

Then there is this: I believe it was Lyndon Johnson that said, ‘Don’t these people realize if they push me over to an extreme position I’ll lose the election? And I’m the one who will be supporting what they want but they’re going to make it so I can’t win.’ Those people in the Republican primary have got to lay off of this stuff. They’re forcing their leaders, the frontrunners, into positions that will mean they lose the general election. Now whether this did it to Cain I don’t know, but nevertheless, you appeal to the narrow base and they’ll applaud the daylights out of what you’re saying and then you hit the general election and they say ‘no way’ and then the Democrat, whoever it is, is going to just play these statements to the hilt. They’ve got to stop this! It’s just so counterproductive!

Oh and that would be Pat Robertson who said the above.

Yes even Pat Robertson thinks the Republican party has gone way too far to the right….

I’m pretty sure they’ve given up on the justification thing. I’ve heard conservative after conservative say “we can’t just give the homeless housing” as if that would somehow lead to the refusal of all people everywhere to do any work whatsoever.

When you explain that people with inherited wealth sufficient that they not work overwhelmingly seek employment anyway they just look confused. Of course a rich person given millions of dollars would be working; they’re morally superior. OTOH a poor person given $10k in social support will apparently choose to do nothing for the rest of their lives when even the simplest job could double their income.

Please play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes. While your e-mail will not show with comments, note that it is our policy not to allow false e-mail addresses. Comments with non-working e-mail addresses may be deleted. Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required)(Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

Dead Link?

We've been soaking in the Bathtub for several months, long enough that some of the links we've used have gone to the Great Internet in the Sky.
If you find a dead link, please leave a comment to that post, and tell us what link has expired.
Thanks!